Modi Entertainment Network v. W.S.G. Cricket Pvt. Ltd.

Facts of the Case

The dispute arose over broadcasting rights and advertising revenue from cricket matches.

• The appellants, Modi Entertainment Network & Anr., filed a suit in the Bombay High Court, claiming damages for loss of advertising revenue due to alleged illegal threats by the respondent.

• The respondent, W.S.G. Cricket Pte. Ltd., filed a separate action in the High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division (the English Court), for money owed under the agreement.

• The appellants entered an appearance in the English Court. Concurrently, they filed for an anti-suit injunction in the Bombay High Court, arguing that the Indian court was the natural forum and that continuing the English proceedings would be vexatious and oppressive.

• A Single Judge of the Bombay High Court granted an ad-interim injunction against the respondent.

• A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court subsequently set aside the injunction, allowing the respondent to proceed with the English action.

The present appeal was filed against the Division Bench Order.

Issue

Whether the Division Bench of the High Court erred in vacating the anti-suit injunction. This required examining the principles governing the grant of an anti-suit injunction by a court of natural jurisdiction to restrain a party from prosecuting a suit in a foreign court of choice.

Rule

• Power to Issue: Courts in India have the power to issue an anti-suit injunction against a party over whom they have personal jurisdiction (in personam jurisdiction).

• Comity and Caution: This power is an equitable one and must be exercised sparingly because, while directed against a person, the injunction interferes with the exercise of jurisdiction by another Court, violating the rule of comity (mutual respect among judicial systems).

• Grounds for Injunction: An anti-suit injunction may be granted only if the foreign proceedings are found to be oppressive, vexatious, or are instituted in a forum non conveniens (an inappropriate forum).

Held

The Supreme Court:

• Affirmed Principles: Stressed the importance of comity and reiterated that the court must ensure the defendant is subject to its jurisdiction and that denying the injunction would not result in injustice.

• Respect for Choice: Held that anti-suit injunctions are rarely granted against a foreign court of choice. Courts must usually respect exclusive or non-exclusive jurisdiction clauses in contracts unless there are strong reasons to justify otherwise.

• Burden of Proof: The burden of proving that the chosen foreign forum is non-conveniens or that the proceedings are vexatious or oppressive lies squarely with the party seeking the injunction (the appellants).

• Applying to Facts:

  • The contract contained a non-exclusive jurisdiction clause pointing to the English courts. The parties were deemed to have accepted the consequences (e.g., costs, travel for witnesses) when they agreed to the clause.

  • The court examined the precedents (like Donohue and SABAH), which show that strong reasons are mandatory to depart from contractual obligations.

  • The Court held that the proceedings in the English court for the recovery of the minimum guaranteed amount could not be deemed oppressive or vexatious at this stage, simply because the appellants had filed their damages suit earlier in India.

• Conclusion: The Court found no valid reasons to grant the anti-suit injunction. The contractual intention to submit to the English court was upheld.

• The appeal was dismissed with costs, upholding the decision of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court.